97
General Discussion / Re: Expanded creature information layout.
« on: April 03, 2010, 07:40:15 am »
I bet those gurus at Wizards of the Coast are behind this...
???
???
Guest Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by a guest. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
98
Issue Archive / Re: PIB with the mummy... but possibly a bug...
« on: April 03, 2010, 07:31:39 am »This is not a bug at all. This is 100% intended behavior. Mutants with passive abilities, Devourer and Mummy, keep those passive abilities no matter what. So Devourer will still steal one quanta from you, and mummy will still turn into a Pharaoh, only the Pharaoh's skill will be something random.I was just playing T50 with a Darkness deck. When Pests are lobotmized, they no longer absorb quantum. If the ability is passive, why is it lost along with burrow?
99
Religion / Re: Does God Exist?
« on: April 01, 2010, 08:35:31 pm »
Puppy, don't mean to gang up on you, just wanted to point two things out.
"After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education on Friday approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light."
"There are seven members of the conservative bloc on the board, but they are often joined by one of the other three Republicans on crucial votes. There were no historians, sociologists or economists consulted at the meetings, though some members of the conservative bloc held themselves out as experts on certain topics."
"Mr. Bradley won approval for an amendment saying students should study “the unintended consequences” of the Great Society legislation, affirmative action and Title IX legislation. He also won approval for an amendment stressing that Germans and Italians as well as Japanese were interned in the United States during World War II, to counter the idea that the internment of Japanese was motivated by racism.
Other changes seem aimed at tamping down criticism of the right. Conservatives passed one amendment, for instance, requiring that the history of McCarthyism include “how the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government.” The Venona papers were transcripts of some 3,000 communications between the Soviet Union and its agents in the United States.
Mavis B. Knight, a Democrat from Dallas, introduced an amendment requiring that students study the reasons “the founding fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring the government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion above all others.”
It was defeated on a party-line vote. "
"Don McLeroy is a balding, paunchy man with a thick broom-handle mustache who lives in a rambling two-story brick home in a suburb near Bryan, Texas. When he greeted me at the door one evening last October, he was clutching a thin paperback with the skeleton of a seahorse on its cover, a primer on natural selection penned by famed evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr. We sat down at his dining table, which was piled high with three-ring binders, and his wife, Nancy, brought us ice water in cut-crystal glasses with matching coasters. Then McLeroy cracked the book open. The margins were littered with stars, exclamation points, and hundreds of yellow Post-its that were brimming with notes scrawled in a microscopic hand. With childlike glee, McLeroy flipped through the pages and explained what he saw as the gaping holes in Darwin’s theory. “I don’t care what the educational political lobby and their allies on the left say,” he declared at one point. “Evolution is hooey.” This bled into a rant about American history. “The secular humanists may argue that we are a secular nation,” McLeroy said, jabbing his finger in the air for emphasis. “But we are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. The way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel. Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan—he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and for the good economy over the last twenty years because he lowered taxes.”
Views like these are relatively common in East Texas, a region that prides itself on being the buckle of the Bible Belt. But McLeroy is no ordinary citizen. The jovial creationist sits on the Texas State Board of Education, where he is one of the leaders of an activist bloc that holds enormous sway over the body’s decisions. As the state goes through the once-in-a-decade process of rewriting the standards for its textbooks, the faction is using its clout to infuse them with ultraconservative ideals. Among other things, they aim to rehabilitate Joseph McCarthy, bring global-warming denial into science class, and downplay the contributions of the civil rights movement."
"Until recently, Texas’s influence was balanced to some degree by the more-liberal pull of California, the nation’s largest textbook market. But its economy is in such shambles that California has put off buying new books until at least 2014. This means that McLeroy and his ultraconservative crew have unparalleled power to shape the textbooks that children around the country read for years to come."
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html)
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1001.blake.html (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1001.blake.html)
Yes. I could drag up a laundry list of questionable moves by school boards, but look at what just passed in Texas:QuoteAs for using American textbooks as a reference.. Use some actual sources.Um, do I even need to respond to that? XD.
"After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education on Friday approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light."
"There are seven members of the conservative bloc on the board, but they are often joined by one of the other three Republicans on crucial votes. There were no historians, sociologists or economists consulted at the meetings, though some members of the conservative bloc held themselves out as experts on certain topics."
"Mr. Bradley won approval for an amendment saying students should study “the unintended consequences” of the Great Society legislation, affirmative action and Title IX legislation. He also won approval for an amendment stressing that Germans and Italians as well as Japanese were interned in the United States during World War II, to counter the idea that the internment of Japanese was motivated by racism.
Other changes seem aimed at tamping down criticism of the right. Conservatives passed one amendment, for instance, requiring that the history of McCarthyism include “how the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government.” The Venona papers were transcripts of some 3,000 communications between the Soviet Union and its agents in the United States.
Mavis B. Knight, a Democrat from Dallas, introduced an amendment requiring that students study the reasons “the founding fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring the government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion above all others.”
It was defeated on a party-line vote. "
"Don McLeroy is a balding, paunchy man with a thick broom-handle mustache who lives in a rambling two-story brick home in a suburb near Bryan, Texas. When he greeted me at the door one evening last October, he was clutching a thin paperback with the skeleton of a seahorse on its cover, a primer on natural selection penned by famed evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr. We sat down at his dining table, which was piled high with three-ring binders, and his wife, Nancy, brought us ice water in cut-crystal glasses with matching coasters. Then McLeroy cracked the book open. The margins were littered with stars, exclamation points, and hundreds of yellow Post-its that were brimming with notes scrawled in a microscopic hand. With childlike glee, McLeroy flipped through the pages and explained what he saw as the gaping holes in Darwin’s theory. “I don’t care what the educational political lobby and their allies on the left say,” he declared at one point. “Evolution is hooey.” This bled into a rant about American history. “The secular humanists may argue that we are a secular nation,” McLeroy said, jabbing his finger in the air for emphasis. “But we are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. The way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel. Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan—he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and for the good economy over the last twenty years because he lowered taxes.”
Views like these are relatively common in East Texas, a region that prides itself on being the buckle of the Bible Belt. But McLeroy is no ordinary citizen. The jovial creationist sits on the Texas State Board of Education, where he is one of the leaders of an activist bloc that holds enormous sway over the body’s decisions. As the state goes through the once-in-a-decade process of rewriting the standards for its textbooks, the faction is using its clout to infuse them with ultraconservative ideals. Among other things, they aim to rehabilitate Joseph McCarthy, bring global-warming denial into science class, and downplay the contributions of the civil rights movement."
"Until recently, Texas’s influence was balanced to some degree by the more-liberal pull of California, the nation’s largest textbook market. But its economy is in such shambles that California has put off buying new books until at least 2014. This means that McLeroy and his ultraconservative crew have unparalleled power to shape the textbooks that children around the country read for years to come."
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html)
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1001.blake.html (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1001.blake.html)
Quote
Oh sure, you can say you believe in the Zeitgeist. It can be your new religion! Just don't go masquerading it as fact. I'm not masquerading Christianity as fact, just that I believe it is.Honest question, what's the difference between calling it fact, and believing it's fact?
100
Religion / Re: Does God Exist?
« on: March 30, 2010, 12:28:27 am »First off, you seem to misunderstand what hell is. Hell is being separate from your Creator, or God, in the afterlife. Heaven is going to be by his side. (Yes, Hell is eternal torment because of this).Actually, hell was a very real place. Before christianity was around, followers of other gods would make sacrifices in a valley outside of Jerusalem (the Valley of Hinnom). The valley later became a place where the residents of Jerusalem would burn their trash and dead bodies. It was said that the fire never died there. The word used for "hell" in the Bible, Gehenna, is a direct reference to this valley. The kicker? Sulfur ("brimstone") deposits were found in the valley, hence why people call hell a "burning lake of sulfur".
The Bible means very much that hell is a place sinners go to be punished for eternity.
101
Religion / Re: Does God Exist?
« on: March 29, 2010, 05:30:20 pm »Luke 14:26I would agree with the last interpretation, but how is that "fair"? As Nietzsche put it: "Love of one is a barbarism; for it is exercised at the expense of all others. The love of god, too."
Hate, in this instance, can mean many things. Indifference, for instance. Or, most likely, it simply means that your love of God must be so great to be a disciple that it must seem to others like you hate your family. ie, Your love of God must be exponentially greater than your love for your family. Seems fair.
Think of what this opens the door to. Nuke a whole city for god? It can be done, because you love god exponentially more than anyone in that city. Kill your children for god? It's been done, countless times. Kill a complete stranger because they express a different viewpoint? Yep, because god is more important. Hope for coexistence of religions? Not under this doctrine. God trumps everything.
There's a problem here. You yourself admitted that god is a belief, "BELIEVING is called BELIEVING for a reason -- you can't prove it", and yet, with admittedly no proof, you think it's okay to love god so much you could sacrifice everything in the world for it? Where do you draw the line?
Leviticus:Do you believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of god? If so, then how can you just ignore the Old Testament? Jesus overrode some procedural laws of the Jews, but never changed what was a sin. Where does Jesus say "Nah, it's cool to be gay now?"
From the Old Testament, and Christianity focuses on Jesus's teachings, not the Old Testament's. Jesus dieing for your sins on the cross changes things.
If, on the other hand, you're saying parts of the Bible are no longer relevant, why can't I just ignore it all?
1 Corinthians:If he loves everyone so much, why even create hell or imperfections in the first place? How can you love someone and condemn them to an eternity of a like of fire? If one of my friends does something I don't like, I get over it, not cast them out of my life forever. Am I a better friend than god? Am I more forgiving than god?
Yes, you won't go to heaven according to the Bible. But God still loves you. God hates sin, but loves everybody despite their sin.
Genesis 19:
Keep in mind the time period this takes place in. Back then, that was acceptable behavior: his daughters were like his property. He was offering to trade the rape of angels for the rape of two daughters.
... ... So god's law is subservient to human culture? So slavery was never wrong, it's just not in fashion anymore? Do you even realize the implications of what you've said? There is no moral standard, it's just what is considered "acceptable behavior" by humans?
102
Water / Re: Flooding / Inundation
« on: March 29, 2010, 04:52:57 pm »
I think it's crap that this card is based on board position, but I have zero influence as to where my creatures are positioned.
Where's the strategy here? I'm completely at the mercy of the luck of the draw, because only the first seven creatures are safe, not the seven I want. This is still OP because I could aflatoxin my opponent's first creature or two and fill up his middle row before he can get anything else out. If you're going to make a card that position matters for, then let me choose where my creatures are.
Where's the strategy here? I'm completely at the mercy of the luck of the draw, because only the first seven creatures are safe, not the seven I want. This is still OP because I could aflatoxin my opponent's first creature or two and fill up his middle row before he can get anything else out. If you're going to make a card that position matters for, then let me choose where my creatures are.
103
Religion / Re: Does God Exist?
« on: March 29, 2010, 05:24:24 am »I believe with Demagog here. BELIEVING is called BELIEVING for a reason -- you can't prove it. You can't disprove it either.First of all, this is just Pascal's wager. I've always liked William James' take on it: God will take a special pleasure in sending people to hell who only have "faith" because it serves their self interest the best.
You say you're 90% sure that there is no God. I say I'm 100% sure there is. Too bad we'll never know who's right.
On another note, I don't fully understand the rational behind not believing. Let's say you choose to believe and live a good Christian (or X religion) life. It turns out there is no God. Oh well, at least you had a positive impact on the world. If it turns out there IS a God, you get to have a big party.
If you choose not to believe (let's say you still live a moral life), and it turns out there is no God, congradulations! You were right! But it doesn't matter since you'll never know you were right since your "self" is gone as soon as your brain stops working! And if it turns out there IS a God, and you didn't believe, you get to go to a bad place. Sucks for you.
In short:
Believing: Worst case: Nothing, and you never know you were wrong. Best case: You get to have a big party in Heaven (or w/e your religion says).
Not Believing: Worst case: You go to Hell (or the bad place for your religion...) and have no fun at all. Best case: Nothing, and you never know you were right.
Second of all, this is one big contradiction. In your first line you state "BELIEVING is called BELIEVING for a reason -- you can't prove it. You can't disprove it either" and then you write a whole post as to your reasoning behind belief. Do you want to subject belief to rigorous scrutiny or not?
Quote from: PuppyChow
I'm fairly certain Jesus never said thatA simple google search turns up that in Luke 14:26 Jesus says what you say he never said.. Almost positive, since some of the disciples WERE brothers. And I don't think they hated each other.
Quote from: PuppyChow
God loves you no matter who you are, bisexual, homosexual, or heterosexual."If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Leviticus 20:13
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Do you even read the Bible, or just take what they give you at church? Ever notice how they don't read some verses? Have you ever heard a sermon read Genesis 19, where Lot offers his two daughters to be raped to protect the angels of god? How about when the exact same story is plagiarized in Judges 19, except in that case a woman was actually raped to death and then cut into pieces?
To quote one of my previous posts:
Quote
Do you know what the oldest surviving version of the Bible is? Do you know what language it's in? Do you know when the New Testament was written? Do you know in what order the gospels were written? Do you know about Zoroaster/Mithras/Bacchus/etc and how the story of Jesus is directly plagiarized from them? Do you know what role Constantine played in church history? Do you know how the Bible was compiled, or why the Catholics have extra books? Do you know why Catholic priests can't marry?If you want to find someone who knows nothing about christianity, look for someone who has been spoon-fed by the church since birth.
Quote from: Kamietsu
You can't say he/she/they didn't. They didn't write any religious text, man did. and we all know how fallible man is.The Bible was supposedly conveyed to man by the Holy Spirit. God was still the author.
Or you can admit man wrote it and god allowed it to be full of half truths and contradictions, as well as poorly translated over time.
So either god screwed up, or is incompetent. Take your pick.
104
Religion / Re: Does God Exist?
« on: March 28, 2010, 10:19:36 pm »Now, if you didn't know the background, what would you think that's implying? That's what quoting many verses of the Bible are like: without analyzing the word choice, allowing for translation problems, understanding the setting, understanding the time period, and such, you can come out with an entirely different meaning than intended. Granted, some verses can stand alone, but many DO require more knowledge to get the full meaning out of.You would think an omnipotent, omnipresent, all-knowing being would have planned that out a little better...
105
Religion / Re: Does God Exist?
« on: March 25, 2010, 05:34:24 am »So just because he says religious texts are false we must accept that as true? Sure, the burden of proof may rely on those who support the religious texts, but until the proof is provided, neither side is correct. It's just like arguments regarding ontological skepticism. The burden of proof lies with those who say nothing outside yourself is real, but that can never be proven (it also can't be proven that everything outside yourself is real, and it might also be that it can't be proven that anything outside yourself is real... I'm not sure about the latter, but I'm pretty sure it's correct). So who is right? The answer is: we'll never know. They don't say, "Well until you provide proof that nothing outside of us exists, we're right," or they wouldn't be debating it in the first place. The fact is, is that it's possible.You're kind of twisting words here. You're pretty much saying "why should I accept what you say as true when you deny that what I say is true-with-no-proof is valid"? He's saying religious texts have no tangible proof to back them up. If you want to claim otherwise, give some reasons, not vague "possibilities".
And if you really want to push extreme skepticism, stop eating food and drinking water. See how long that "possibility" the world doesn't exist works for you. Every second of everyday has infinite "possibilities", but if you stopped to consider them all, you wouldn't get anywhere. Being a possibility isn't good enough, claims need reasons to back them up.
Quote
Bolded part, contradictary. They have the burden of truth, as you said, they simply show the monkey. They hay have an easier burden of truth, but the burden is still there, that one statement alone is the whole point. They lesser majority has to prove it to the greater majority (no nmatter how easy or hard htat may be).This is not contradictory. You gave two scenarios:
Quote
1. Say no one knew that monkeys existed. If one was seen, and someone swore up and down that they saw it, who would be the person with the burden of truth? It would be the person who swore up and down that they saw it.In scenario 1, the person says "I have seen a monkey, which no one knew existed". People would respond to this "Well, until you show me the monkey, I have no reason to take this as true." It is then up to the person who made the claim to point to the monkey so others can see.
2. Now we all know that monkeys exist, so lets say the opposite. There was someone who said monkeys didnt exist. Who would be the person to have the burden of truth here?
In scenario 2, the person is now saying "Despite what you say, I do not think monkeys exist." However, he cannot just point to a spot and say "there's a non-monkey". It doesn't make sense, and he cannot give proof.
The only response would be "Monkeys do exist, because I have seen one." Now you're back at scenario 1, where the person making an affirmative claim must point out the monkey. There is only one burden of proof.
106
Religion / Re: Evolution and Intelligent Design
« on: March 25, 2010, 05:03:42 am »Have you given it exstensive research? Or just what you have learned in schools/colleges?I'm not sure what you mean here. In general, most people you interact with at a university are more educated than the average person. What do you mean "just what you have learned in schools/college"?
No, I dont believe it should be taught in school as a fact, as a commonly accepted theory, I have no proble with.This is a common error. A theory is not the opposite of a fact. In truth, calling evolution a theory makes it stronger than a fact, because a theory is a collection of facts that cohere into a consistent explanation. That is to say, in the hierarchy of scientific knowledge, a theory is above a fact. I don't mean to offend here, but I am somewhat wary of people who want to influence a science curriculum (i.e., saying what should be taught), but don't understand basic terminology.
First thing I have a problem with.It's not "believed by some" that Darwin said that. It's straight out of the Origin of Species. He was completely honest about the limitations and implications of his theory. Unlike Creationists, scientists can accept they are wrong at times and seek better answers. He was merely pointing out potential problems that required further investigation.
If it can be proven that any structure exists in the world, that can not be created by numerous successive modifications, then evolution will not be posssible. It is believed by some that darwin himself said that in different wording saying that "my theory would absolutely break down", however, there is much debate about this. I dont care if you believe he said it or not, its not important. What is important is that it is true that it is a limitation of evolution.
A substance such as this is considered an irreducibly complex structure. One Example, is a bacterial flagellum.Irreducible complexity was largely championed by Micheal Behe in the early 1990s and in his book Darwin's Black Box. In the past 15 years or so since its publication, nearly all of its "challenges to science" have been answered by research.
107
Deck Help / Re: Full deck fun!
« on: March 25, 2010, 04:43:32 am »
It seems like this would be ungodly slow to plow through and get the cards you need, and you'd get trampled before you started. How does it work for you?
108
Deck Help / Re: any tips for my deck?
« on: March 25, 2010, 01:51:40 am »You are the umpteenth person who asks in his first post an help to set up your deck...so I have a question: why, before do this, you havn't see this sections???Unless I'm missing something, I'm pretty sure he's well within his rights to ask for deck help in the deck help section.
Quote
I like it, but then again I dont. To me it seems like a mix of too many things. You have no real strategy. Im good with rainbow decks but they at least have a creature base that is not just one of random monsters. So first I would run fewer differnent creatures, and instead run more of the ones you run. So maybe run 3 Graboid and 3 Lava Golemn along with a few others. Next I would cut the deck down on cards. YOu want to consistantly get the cards you need to with a deck that big it wont work very well.No no no! Adding too many cards of one type will kill a rainbow deck. You don't have a large pool of one type of quantum, so you won't be able to support multiple creatures that need the same type. If you want to play 3 Lava Golems, play a fire deck. The advantage here is that you can play a little bit from each element.
He is right in saying you need a focus, however. What's your general strategy when you play the deck?
These are my PERSONAL opinions, right off the bat:
- Drop the Novas. Your chance of drawing them early in a deck this big are pretty small, and they will be useless in the endgame. Even early on I don't see much benefit to them.
- Drop the Purify. There just aren't enough AI poison decks to justify lugging that around.
- Add 2-3 Quintessences. Use them to protect your critical creatures (mostly Elf and Oty).
- Add another Rain of Fire. Use it for creature control and to make enemies easier for your Otys to eat.
- I used to use a Dissipation Shield instead of a second Bone Wall. It was a good endgame shield because the Elf is the only thing that uses Entropy, so you normally have quite a bit of extra quantums in late game. Something to consider.
- I'd consider dropping an Oty. I guess you probably want a good chance to draw one, but can you consistently support 3 of them?
- When you start winning electrum, upgrade your Elf, Hourglasses, and Otys ASAP (I'd do them in that order).
Just curious, is one of the reasons you run a bigger deck because you don't have an Eternity?